Bizarre Noir #4: Sin City.

Welcome to the fourth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

-------------

Sin City.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, and Quentin Tarantino (for one scene).

Why it's bizarre: The comic book look and multiple stories.

Sin City is more of an art form than a movie. With a huge cast, Sin City explodes with star power in three (and a half) different stories. The first snip starts with The Man (Josh Hartnett), an assassin-for-hire. After the short scene, it continues on to Hartigan (Bruce Willis), a cop that is trying to save young Nancy from Roark Jr. (Nick Stahl). Then we have the criminal Marv (Mickey Rourke). After Goldie (Jaime King) is murdered by silent assassin Kevin (Elijah Wood), Marv travels around town trying to figure out who killed Goldie and why. Then we have Dwight (Clive Owen), a criminal with a new face, who sets out to get revenge on lady friend Shellie’s (Brittney Murphy) ex-boyfriend, Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro). But he ends up in a tougher situation than originally planned. Then it goes back to Hartigan again, after getting out of jail. He goes to find grown Nancy (Jessica Alba), the only person who had kept him sane and alive through his years in prison. But, unfortunately, a Yellow Bastard (Nick Stahl) has his own secret agenda. And there’s a whole bunch of other people in the movie, too.

As far as noirs go, this movie has it all. It has the shadowy and unique camera shots (in more ways than one). It has the voice-over narration. It has all the mystery and murder and sexuality you could expect. The star-power really shines, as the movie is really well acted for what it is.

The most obvious comment for the movie is its visual style. It is very comic book, and very original for a movie (only to be redone for the later 300, though to a slightly lesser degree). It was stunning to watch the first time, and it’s still fun to watch now. There really isn’t much more to say about it than that.

The only downfall to the movie is that it’s choppy and incoherent. What I mean to say is that, with the exception of Josh Hartnett’s character and story, none of the stories intersect in any meaningful way. And I understand that each segment was based on a different comic, but they could have connected them all together somehow. They even had a good opportunity to change it all up a little bit, assuming that’s not how it was in the comics (I haven’t read them). But Marv’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the prostitutes. And Hartigan’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the Roarks. But they weren’t… so, really, it was kinda like the ‘Series of Unfortunate Events’ movie, where each segment was almost unrelated to the one before it, making it feel slightly disjointed.

But I did love how Josh Hartnett’s character came back into play at the very end. I thought that was brilliant and made up for some of the lack of connection otherwise. So overall, I though it was brilliant in what it attempted (and succeeded) to do. It has its flaws, sure, and it’s one of those movies you have to be in the right mood to watch… but when you’re in that mood, it’s a good one.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #3: Memento.

Welcome to the third of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

--------------

Memento.

Year of Origin: 2000.

Director: Christopher Nolan.

Why it's bizarre: The chronology of the movie is mixed up (and mostly backwards).

Memento is interesting in all aspects, really… but the strange thing is, I’m sure if the movie was played out in chronological order, it would be boring as hell (or at least infinitely less interesting). It’s about this guy, Leonard (Guy Pearce), who has short-term memory loss (he can’t make new memories). His wife was raped and murdered, and he’s out to find the man who did it to get revenge. Helping him is Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), as well as femme fatale Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss). But the movie’s plot occurs in two fashions: the first is in reverse chronological order, which starts at the end of the movie and goes back toward the beginning; the second is a black-and-white bit that occurs in chronological order, starting at the beginning and working its way forward. By the end of the movie, these two halves meet, and the end of the movie is essentially the middle.

There really isn’t a whole lot to cover on this movie except to say that it is highly original and is really a great work of film by director Christopher Nolan (of Batman Begins and upcoming The Dark Knight fame). The concept of playing the movie out of order, yet still having all the surprises occur at what is basically the beginning (or middle) of the movie is brilliant. I’ve always loved the idea of figuring out things in reverse… it’s a good technique for writers. For instance, you have a broken window. How did the window get broken? A story begins with this distraught character. How did the character get that way? It’s fun stuff. Not to mention that it’s really the epitome of detective work, which can be a staple for noir.

And voice-over narration is another noir classic, and this movie has a lot of it. Most of it is rather funny, such as the scene in which Leonard is running and sees another guy. He thinks “Okay, what am I doing? I’m chasing this guy.” Then the guy shoots at him. “Nope, he’s chasing me.” There are just really clever things they do with it.

The acting was well done all around the board. But the real shout out goes to Stephen Tobolowsky for the role of Sammy Jankis. Even though he’s only actually shown a few times, just the looks in his eyes are packed with both emotion and blankness that is very fitting for the character. On a similar note, I think it’s interesting that Brad Pitt was at one time considered for the role of Leonard, because, to me, Guy Pearce looked like a version of Brad Pitt mixed with Christian Bale in this movie (more Pitt, though). Every time I saw him, I’d think one or the other.

The only downside to the movie is that it is a rather bleak and depressing movie, so repeated viewings are difficult unless you’re either in the right mood or haven’t watched it in a while. This is also due to the fact that if you’ve watch it too much, the effect of the reverse chronology wears off… either that, or it can really become taxing to watch. I’ve seen the movie about five times or so now, but this is over the course of quite a few years, so the movie feels somewhat new to me every time I watch it. And every time I watch it, I always have forgotten about a great twist at the end of the movie, so I’m always surprised when it’s revealed (not the main twist, but that other littler one). So yeah, really, that’s about all I’ve got to say about this movie.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #2: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Welcome to the second of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

---------------

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Shane Black.

Why it's bizarre: It breaks the fourth wall. And it's funny.

Robert Downey Jr. stars as thief Harry Lockhart who, in running from the law, finds himself pretending to try out for a detective movie. They cast him, but want him to get some detective lessons from Gay Perry (Val Kilmer), a gay detective. Then Harry stumbles into his old hometown crush, Harmony (Michelle Monaghan). Meanwhile, Harry and Perry start getting set up for a murder, while Harmony’s sister is supposedly murdered. So now both men are trying to figure out both cases, which are seemingly unrelated, while also trying to stay alive.

Let me start off by saying I love this movie, and it has become one of my favorites. It’s hilarious, suspenseful (at times), and quirky. The first time I saw it, I was completely confused with the ending, unsure of how everything tied together or what had actually gone down because it all moves so fast and you have to remember almost every little detail in the movie (fortunately, RDJ’s narration will sometimes kick in and tell you that something within a scene might be important for later on). But after that first time, I had it all down and can understand it just fine now.

The acting is superb, and the comedy chemistry between RDJ and Val Kilmer is great. And Val has gained quite a bit of weight, making you wonder how exactly he ever fit into that bat suit (though most of us don’t want to remember that anyway). And you really feel for the characters in the movie and what happens to them.

The movie itself never goes where you expect it to. Just when you think you know where the movie is going, it takes a sharp turn and throws you off. And that on top of the witty narration and dialogue make the movie truly memorable. There’s one bit of dialogue that I love that can really exemplify both of these things:

Perry: “Look up ‘idiot’ in the dictionary. You know what you’ll find?”

Harry: “A… picture of me?”

Perry: “No! The definition of the word idiot, which you fucking are!”

And just because I know this dialogue can do nothing but make you curious…

Harry: I peed on the corpse. Can they do, like, an ID from that?
Perry: I'm sorry, you peed on...?
Harry: On the corpse. My question is...
Perry: No, my question. I get to go first. Why in pluperfect hell would you pee on a corpse?

Really, the visuals are good (especially for a movie with this low of a budget), the acting is great, the story is great (though really fast-paced), the dialogue is witty, and the movie is both funny and unpredictable. And there are a lot of references to old noir/detective books and such, if you’re a fan of those. And if you’re a fan of RDJ, noirs, comedies, or are just interested in seeing Val Kilmer play a gay man, you gotta check out Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Royale With Cheese

Bizarre Noir #1: Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Welcome to the first entry for A Week Of Bizarre Noir. I hope you enjoy this blog-a-thon. For more information, please check here.

-------------

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Year of Origin: 1988.

Director: Robert Zemeckis.

Why it's bizarre: Toons!

What is a week of bizarre noir without mentioning one of the greatest—and most entertaining (especially upon repeat viewings)—available? This universe is unlike any other, as it is a mix of both real live people and cartoon characters. Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) is a drunken detective, depressed over the death of his brother (killed by a toon). After he’s hired to take some incriminating pictures of Jessica Rabbit, Roger Rabbit’s wife, playing patty cake with Marvin Acme (Stubby Kaye), owner of toon town, Roger makes threatening statements toward Mr. Acme. Soon thereafter, Marvin Acme is found dead, and the police, led by Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd), believe Roger was the murderer. However, Roger, forcing a plea of innocence to Eddie after sneaking into his apartment, begs the detective and toon hater to help him figure out who set him up and why.

This movie really is a classic, and one of my favorites. It has every aspect of a classic noir (except the voice-over narration)—the cinematography of shadows and grit, the smooth jazz-like music, multiple mysteries as of yet unconnected, a drunken detective, a love interest, and a femme fatale. And what young boy didn’t look at Jessica Rabbit with wide-eyed wonderment? The mix between gritty, hardboiled noir and family comedy cartoon is perfect.

Not to mention the animation is seamless. This movie couldn’t have been made today, because they would have mucked it up with crappy CGI that wouldn’t have worked right. This animation is timeless because everything is meant to look the way it does. They’re supposed to be cartoons that look ripped out of their era, not 3D models that look realistic with the real world. And the interaction between real world and cartoon world is perfect, as well. The movie’s mix of live action and animation will never go out of style or look like crappy special effects unlike most movies. And if my word isn’t enough, the movie won three Oscars, two of which were for Best Visual Effects and Best Editing (the other was Best Sound Effects Editing).

The acting is great, too. Bob Hoskins does a great depressed detective, and Christopher Lloyd does a great psychopath. But the movie is really won over by the cartoon cast, specifically Roger and Jessica Rabbit… and the weasels. But mostly Jessica. I mean, look at those… erm… Yeah. And you never know whose side she’s on. As she states, “I’m not bad. I’m just drawn that way.”

So really, if you haven’t seen this movie by now, shame on you. It was released back in 1988. You’ve had at least 20 years now. Go see it (buy, rent, or Netflix; whichever your preference). While the other movies on this list might lose their special appeal after numerous viewings, this one will not. It will always have its charm and magic no matter how many times it is viewed. And that’s what makes it a classic.

Royale With Cheese

LKMYNTS... Dog Soldiers.

I haven’t done a Little Known Movies You Need To See (or, as the acronym seems to spell, 'lick my nuts') since January, but I felt this could be one, though not in the same way as the others. Dog Soldiers was made by the same guy who did The Descent and Doomsday. However, unlike The Descent, I actually enjoyed this one, much in the same was as Doomsday ('oddly entertaining'). Dog Soldiers is about a group of soldiers sent off to training in the middle of the Scotland Highlands who stumble upon a pack of werewolves. They meet up with a young woman who takes them to a house nearby, and they have to try and last it out until morning.

I’m not saying this movie is brilliant. In fact, I only recommend it if you’re a fan of B-Horror movies (or werewolves, though that’s usually the same territory). It’s been compared a lot to movies such as Jaws, Alien(s), or Predator. Personally, I think that while it may have one or two similarities with those (at a sort of stretch), I think it has a lot more in common with Night of the Living Dead, but with werewolves instead of zombies. I’d go into specifics, but I might spoil the movie.

But the movie is more horror/comedy than anything. The first half of the movie for me was just like one of those movies that is so awful it's good. I mean, I really thought it was bad... but I couldn't help being entertained. But then the last half picks up and is actually pretty good. And just when I thought the movie’s plot was pretty much non-existent and that the movie was more straightforward or linear, there were a couple plot twists that are cool and unexpected.

As for visuals, there’s a lot of gore in the movie, more than I imagined there would be. You actually see people’s guts (even though they look like big sausages). There’s a humorous scene where one guy is trying to put another guy’s guts back into his body so they can get up and run, and the one guy (with his guts hanging out) is like “they’re not gonna fit!” That, to me, was just so absurd a scene that it was bordering hilarious. For other kinds of visuals, the movie isn’t the most spectacular to look at, but it has its moments. For instance, there’s a scene near the end where a character is standing up and you see the werewolves walk up right behind the person, and they’re all just standing there and it looks awesome.

There were some negatives, such as it really seems that the werewolves show up in the middle of the day, and the last werewolf attack happens when the sun is already out… yet there are still werewolves. It just seems like a gap in the lore the movie set up. Also, they couldn’t have been more obvious with the ‘silver knife’ presented in the opening scene. Chekhov’s Gun, anyone? Also, as much as other people say there is, I just did not see any real character development. All the characters stayed exactly the same throughout the movie.

Overall, if you’re looking for a B-Horror werewolf movie that’s entertaining, absurd, funny, and action-packed, I’d recommend Dog Soldiers.

I Am McLovin!

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL.

Also known as Indiana Jones Vs. The Martians. The fourth movie in the series picks up almost two decades later, and Russians are after something mysterious that they need Indiana Jones’ (Harrison Ford) help to get. It turns out that these Russians, led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), are after a crystal skull that was found again by Professor Oxley (John Hurt), which will give the person who returns it to its rightful home some kind of ultimate power. Also along for the ride is old flame Marion (Karen Allen) and her son, Mutt (Shia LaBeouf).

This movie had good points and bad points. Overall, it was really cool. One of the best in the series, I’d say. The acting was done really well from all parties, including Harrison Ford, who didn’t come off as too old for that part at all.

The visuals were nice, as well. The cinematography was excellent, and the special effects were pretty good, too. The play with light and shadows was done pretty well. The action sequences were well choreographed, especially the jungle car chase sequence (including Pirates-esque sword fight), which was awesome. I’d have to say that was probably my favorite scene in the movie.

The bad stuff wasn’t incredibly huge, though. Cate Blanchett’s accent slipped once or twice toward the beginning. And there were a few scenes that were incredibly unbelievable (and I mean this in the bad way). There seriously was some stuff I just couldn’t suspend my disbelief for, because it was so out-there… from the atomic bomb surviving to the cliff-into-water jump after the jungle chase to the whole triple waterfall sequence. I mean, I can buy the aliens, but that stuff was just silly.

But overall, it was a really good movie. It was fun, funny, and action-packed. There really isn’t a whole lot to say about the movie in general. It was fun, although highly predictable, and I would see it again.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Neil Flynn's (The Janitor from Scrubs) cameo is great... but I so couldn't take him seriously).

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN.

I probably won’t have that much to say about this one except that Prince Caspian is only better than the first in action. 1300 years after the events of the first movie, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), after being forced to run from his castle due to an attempted assassination, summons the Pevensie siblings to help restore peace to Narnia and reclaim his rightful throne. Unfortunately, Narnians, including Aslan, have either been killed off or disappeared… so their mission is rather difficult. That’s about it. Seriously, the plot isn’t the most complicated one in the world.

This movie was darker than the previous, but it still shared the faults of the previous. The acting was mediocre at best (and I personally felt embarrassed any time Peter shouted something like “FOR NARNIA!” or “FOR ASLAN!” or “CHARGE!”). Ben Barnes as Caspian probably did the best acting job. But the best character, hands down, was Reepicheep, a little warrior mouse voiced by Eddie Izzard. He was awesome. But the other issue was that the themes were pretty dark, yet it’s just a PG movie. One of the biggest problems I had with the first movie was that the action was unrealistically clean. If a sword stabs into somebody, it should come out bloodstained, not sparkly clean. The same thing happened in this movie. It’s a war, yet the people barely even get dirty. Add some realism for Christ’s sake.

And speaking of, the religious allegory is still very much present. While the first movie was a resurrection/savior tale, this one was more about having faith and not wavering in your beliefs. It wasn’t strong in the first half of the movie, but it was so obvious in the second half, especially toward the very end, that it’s almost too much. And I have nothing against a religious message. I believe in God. But there’s a point when it can go a bit too far. It’s like “okay, we get your point. We understand the theme. You can stop now. You’re just being cheesy.” There’s a scene toward the end with Lucy that is so horribly acted and so in-your-face with the message that it’s more of something you would see on an after-school PBS religious special.

The special effects are both good and bad. Some of it is overtly fake, while some of it looks pretty cool. And I have to say, I love Harry Potter, but those movies could learn how to do Centaurs from Narnia.

So really, the movie was predictable, sometimes cheesy and too in-your-face with the religious message, and so-so acted. But the action scenes were really cool, regardless of the cleanliness. And it did have some pretty funny moments. The first hour was pretty slow, but then the last half picks up with all the action. But otherwise, the movie was only relatively average. Like the first one, I’ll have seen it once in theater, and that’ll probably be enough.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

SPEED RACER.

I’ve never taken drugs, but if I had, I’m sure the experience would be something a lot like Speed Racer. Even after the controversy over and death of his brother Rex (Scott Porter), Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) wants to be one of the best race car drivers ever. Along with his girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci) and his family, Pops (John Goodman), Mom (Susan Sarandon), little brother Spritle (Paulie Litt), Spritle’s pet monkey Chim Chim, and their mechanic Sparky (Kick Gurry), Speed will do whatever it takes. But after Speed wins an important race, super-conglomerate man Royalton (Roger Allam) offers Speed a contract which turns his life upside down, and he must team up with the mysterious Racer X (Matthew Fox) to put it back in order.

The movie isn’t overly complicated. In fact, there isn’t much to say about it. However, I haven’t had THIS MUCH FUN at a movie in a long time. It was very over-the-top, most of the time cheesy, and almost all the time cartoonish in nature, but it worked. In fact, the climax of the movie is simultaneously one of the most over-dramatic/over-the-top climaxes, yet one of the most awesome things ever.

The movie was random, the editing was fast yet fluid (I feel bad for the editor), and it was just zany fun. The dialogue, as I said, could get pretty cheesy at times, as could the acting, but it’s based on a cheesy cartoon, so it works really well. And I couldn’t picture the parts with any other actors or actresses now. They were all cast very well. The races were awesome, too.

As for the multi-color extravaganza, you get rather used to it pretty quickly, but it does make you feel as if you’re on drugs the entire time. And there are moments that even made me feel kinda dizzy, and I did perfectly fine with Cloverfield. And if I had anything negative to say about it, it would be that the first half of the movie moved a lot slower than the second half. Once the movie reaches the cross-country race, it really picks up and gets really awesome.

Overall, I can’t really say much more about the movie. It set out to do something and it did it. The movie was straight-up fun, funny, corny, action-packed, and (at times) even dramatic. I was gripping my seat come climax scene. The Wachowski’s were definitely on something when they made this movie, but it was worth it. And if I ever get in a position to where I’m not sure if I wanna watch a live action movie or a cartoon, I’ll know what to do. Cool beans.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Short Review: Rocky Balboa.

I haven't done one of these since Hard Candy, but felt this movie couldn't really be reviewed any other way...

--------------

Premise: Ex-Boxer gets back in the ring to face current champ.

Starring: Sylvester Stallone (who also wrote and directed), Burt Young, Milo Ventimiglia.

My reaction: The story was disjointed. The acting was mostly flat and pretty bad (specifically by Burt Young). The dialogue was even worse. Milo Ventimiglia was vastly underused. I haven't seen any of the other Rocky movies, but if this one was any indication, I might be better off. It wasn't a total waste, but it was pretty close. Even the training montage was bad... and it's insanely hard to screw up a montage.


Feed Me, Seymour!

Overrated Movies: The Descent.

So I gave it another shot and tried to like it. I really did (tried, not liked it). And while Shea over at Unheralded will highly disagree with this entire post, I gotta say the second viewing didn’t help a whole lot (though it did a little).

One year after a horrible car accident kills her family, Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) reunites with her risk-taking friends to go on a spelunking adventure in America. However, one wrong thing after another happens, all escalating to the point where they all get attacked by blind, cave-dwelling monsters (AKA Gollums) that want to do nothing but eat them.

I’ll start off with the good things about this movie, some of which I didn’t come to appreciate until this second viewing (I first saw it in theater when it first came out 3 years ago. I saw it for the second time just a while ago). First, the movie had some really great shots pre-cave (and even some really cool shots within the cave, as well). And once they were in the cave, the way the director played with light and darkness was amazing. Seriously, I did love how the only light ever shown while in the cave was light created by the characters (a similar technique was done in the opening scene of Saw 3, which I enjoyed). There was never any added light. If it didn’t come from the characters, it was pitch black in that spot.

Also, the movie did have some really tense scenes. The pre-Gollums scenes in the cave where it was just woman versus nature were great, specifically the horribly claustrophobic body-sized crawlspace scene. I felt the tension for that one in theater, and I felt it again on the second viewing. Though this time, I did appreciate the Gollums a bit more. They were creepy looking, and they weren’t overly reliant on CGI, which is rare these days.

But now for the bad. I think the biggest problem I have for the movie is the characters. Really, the only character’s name I ever remembered was Juno, but I just re-dubbed her as Asian Leader Bitch. In fact, I basically re-dubbed them all. Besides her, there was The Depressed Main Character, Young Immature Risk-Taker, Hot Yet Rarely Shown, The Other One, and Annoying Know-It-All Panicker With A Thick Upper Lip (I know… that one’s a bit long). There are six main girls (I’m relatively sure… they all kind of blend together), and only half of them really have any sort of personality… though, unfortunately, part of that personality is “annoying.” What I’m getting at is that I didn’t care for any them, which is bad for a horror movie. If you don’t care for the characters, then their deaths are meaningless to me (and most of them were).

Not to mention they were mostly idiots (which is depressing, considering two are major risk-takers and should know better; one is an English teacher, which is insulting to me; and one is about to be a doctor). After they find out that these things only know you’re there if you make a noise, at least one of them decides to make loud noises at all times, especially Annoying Know-It-All Panicker With A Thick Upper Lip. Seriously, if you’re walking around a corner to check if a vicious auditory hunter is on the other side, you do not jump and go “AH!” upon looking. And if a bunch are in the room with you, you do not scream “RUN!” as none of them should attack if they don’t hear you in the first place (I’m talking about you, here, Asian Leader Bitch). And speaking of badly written scripts, there was one bit of dialogue I thought worthy of mentioning that I had a bit of a chuckle at. One of the women is like "I'm telling you, I saw somebody! I could describe what I saw EXACTLY." And another asked her to, so she responded "It was a man!" Yeah... how exact and specific.

And this leads to another issue. Towards the very end of the movie, the Gollums start breaking their own rules. A lot of things can happen in a horror movie that breaks boundaries, but the bad guys should never break their own rules. The Gollums are supposed to be auditory predators, yet they make moves and attacks that should not be possible if all they can do is hear (over half the attacks would have involved them having to see their victims). It was ridiculous.

The gore was pretty good, and there were some gross-out moments (like the broken leg fix). But it did get over-the-top at one critical moment, which would be the blood pool. Even if these creatures killed and ate a bunch of people and/or animals in that cave, there would not be a pool of blood that massive right there… unless they specifically drain blood into a pit for later use, but I seriously doubt it.

So the movie did go up a couple notches for me from my first viewing due to some really cool shots and light/dark effects (among a few other things), but the negatives still far outweigh the positives. And there is a sequel coming out, though I figure it’ll follow in the footsteps of horror sequels past and be worse. I guess I’ll wait and see. I usually love movies produced by Lionsgate (especially horror), but I still don’t think this movie deserves all the praise it received.

Feed Me, Seymour!

IRON MAN.

It’s the first big blockbuster of the season… and it delivers. I got to see the 8 PM Thursday Night showing, so I'm happy. Anyway, on to the review. Iron Man is about Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), a billionaire weapons manufacturer who gets captured by terrorists demanding him to build a new-age missile. But, knowing that he’ll just be killed afterwards anyway, Stark creates a prototype armor suit instead and fights his way back home. After a change of heart (literally), he decides to fight the evil his own company has created. He builds the suit and fights the bad guys. That’s the basic gist of it.

I normally try to list all of the major cast members in the synopsis, but I really couldn’t this time. The reason? This movie was a one-man show. Robert Downey Jr. owned this movie on every level. He was smart, quick-witted, and hilarious (not to mention a badass superhero). Terrence Howard as Jim Rhodes, his air force friend, did a nice job. And Jeff Bridges (AKA The Dude) as Obadiah Stane did well, too. There was really only one acting complaint I had… which would be Academy Award Winning actress Gwyneth Paltrow.

Odd, huh? She just seemed really awkward and out of place in this movie (the title of which most thought would go to Downey Jr.). There were times she tried to be as quick-witted as Downey Jr., but it just didn’t work. Not to mention the climax of the movie in which Tony is whispering commands at her so she can help out, and she’s standing not too far away answering back in shouts (into her cell phone) for all to hear. Learn to whisper, woman.

Another thing, closely related to my previous comment, was the actual climax. One would think that Iron Man would use less weapons with normal humans and more weapons with giant robots. Apparently the movie thought differently. The final battle could have used a lot more action from the Iron Man suit. All it really did was fly around. But besides Gwyneth and the final battle, I have no complaints.

The movie did have some really cool action. The special effects were AMAZING. And, as previously stated, the movie as a whole was hilarious. It wasn’t as dark as Batman Begins, but wasn’t as light (nor as crappy) as Fantastic Four. There was a healthy mix of drama and comedy. And it totally sets it up for a sequel (in more ways than one). For those who haven’t heard yet, stick around until after the credits for a short scene. Really, it was a great movie that I’d love to see again (and again). Good fun.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I don’t know if it’s just because he shaved his hair off, but The Dude’s head is enormous).

THE FORBIDDEN KINGDOM.

It’s the event we’ve all been waiting for… and it was freakin awesome! The whole movie is kinda like The Neverending Story meets The Karate Kid. When Jason (Michael Angarano), a Kung Fu-obsessed teenager, gets into trouble with a street gang, he ends up in the possession of an ancient staff that transports him back to ancient China. After meeting drunken traveler Lu Yan (Jackie Chan), Jason discovers that he’s quite possibly a prophesized traveler meant to bring this powerful staff back to its rightful owner, The Monkey King (Jet Li), so that the Monkey King can defeat the Jade Warlord (Collin Chou) and free the land of tyranny. Along the way, they also meet a young musician out for revenge, Sparrow (Yifei Liu), and a traveling monk (also Jet Li), on a journey to help reunite the staff with The Monkey King.

The beginning (after the Monkey King sequence) is really the only downfall to the movie. It’s cliché, questionably acted, and insanely fast-paced, as if they really didn’t care about the setup at all (which I’m sure they didn’t). The beginning stuff in ancient China is cool, but a bit slow. The movie really starts to pick up with the tea house fight scene. This part also introduces us to Sparrow, who… for some strange and unexplained reason… likes to speak in the third person. It’s a bit confusing at first, but you get used to it. Though she’s really hot, so that makes up for it, too.

The fights scenes are amazingly choreographed, and you really can’t tell Jet Li or Jackie Chan’s age in any of it. They move fast, and they move awesomely. And there’s very little Wire-Fu, as the trailers seem to indicate the contrary. It is there, don’t get me wrong, but it’s minimal. Most of it is straight-up Kung Fu action. And the action scenes are all pretty long, which is great… especially the Chan/Li fight, which goes on for about 5-10 minutes at least. The price of admission is worth it simply for that fight, but all the other ones are just as amazing.

The biggest problem people have been having (prior to seeing it) is with the ‘white kid’. Let me tell you, it’s actually not bad. His story arch works, and it isn’t overly cheesy or anything. And his fighting is actually pretty well done. He doesn’t become a super master or anything, so it isn’t all cliché like that. He still gets his ass kicked after learning to fight. The fighting lessons just help him to stand more of a chance than he would have had otherwise.

As for Chan and Li, you could tell they really had a lot of fun making this movie, especially Li with his Monkey King character. It’s over-the-top and goofy, but it works and is just as cool as everything else. The ending of the movie isn’t nearly as cliché or predictable as you would think, as it is only really half of a typical Hollywood ending. The visuals were great, and the music was stunningly amazing. I found that I really enjoyed the music of this movie.

For a kid’s movie, it was really well done, and I loved the action and everything else about the movie. I’d go as far as saying that it’s one of my favorites for the year (thus far). They could have worked on Jason's intro a bit more, but it's really overshadowed by the rest of the movie. And I’m totally gonna go see it again.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

THE RUINS.

I saw and reviewed this movie over the weekend, but didn't put it up due to the Week of Recent East Asian Cinema event going on. The only reason I saw it in theater was because I made a deal with a fellow LAMB, Shea, that I would see and review this, and he would see a certain movie that I keep going on about. Well, it's totally unfair, because he's gonna get to see a totally awesome movie, and I, well... you'll see...

----------

This movie is like mixing Cabin Fever with The Descent… except with monster vines instead of Gollums. The movie is about four 20-somethings vacationing in Mexico: Jeff (Jonathan Tucker), Amy (Jenna Malone), Eric (Shawn Ashmore), and Stacy (Laura Ramsey). When a German guy named Mathias (Joe Anderson) mentions that he was gonna go find his brother who went off with some archaeologist woman to an old Mayan temple in the middle of nowhere and haven’t come back yet. So of course they all want to go. But when they get there, these ‘guardians’ of the ruins show up and won’t let them leave… and then the plants of the ruins are alive and start attacking them and such.

So yeah, it was a pretty cliché movie, from the story to the characters. There actually really is no plot except that they get stuck on this big hill/ruins and can’t leave and start dying one by one. I mean, even leading up to the point of the ruins is silly. “Let’s go off the beaten path to the ruins where nobody has returned from… and even though the path is covered up which obviously means ‘do not enter’, we should keep on going anyway. And then let’s give our only working phone to one of the men that is trying to kill us.” The writing can be written off by one line in the movie: “Somebody will come! Four Americans on Vacation [in Mexico] don’t just disappear!” Uh, yeah… what news have you been watching, buddy? Everything basically happens like you figure it would.

As for the characters, it’s cliché city here, as well. In fact, the only character I really cared any amount about was Jonathan Tucker’s Jeff, who was pretty decently acted and the obvious main character. The others… I forgot their names almost immediately and renamed them with the clichés they embodied: Eric became ‘complaining friend with stupid idea that will get them killed’ and Stacy became ‘hot girl who cries and panics all the time’. Seriously, when the ending came about, the immediate thought in my mind (and this never happens) was “run, final girl, run! There you go, falling down and looking back! Just run!” Even the very end was a cliché horror movie technique. We seriously didn’t know much of anything about any of the characters, except for Jeff, who is going to med school (luckily for them). So there’s a really funny line toward the end of the movie… “You don’t know anything about us!” I was like “Yeah, no shit!”

But there are some positives. All the stuff at the ruins with Mathias was cool (it was the suspenseful/gory parts), as well as the stuff soon after with Stacy. There’s also some eye candy in the beginning when the main chars are all doing the horror movie ritual of partying. The gore stuff toward the end, though, was probably the only reason I bumped up my scoring to where I did. It didn’t fix the movie by any means, but it at least made it more interesting and/or worthwhile instead of watching a bunch of random people crying and complaining on top of a hill for 90 minutes.

The plant/vine monster… thing… whatever it was… was alright. It actually didn’t attack very often. It attacked them like… twice. But the first time put it inside the body, so that’s really all it needed. Every other time, it just pulled away the dead or bloody stuff. And the echo flowers were a neat concept, though incredibly weird. They helped to lure them, as well as increase paranoia, so they worked at that. Otherwise, they were just odd.

So yeah, I would probably recommend waiting for it to be on Showtime or HBO or Starz… whatever channel you watch your movies on. At least wait for the rental if you must. It’s not God-awful, but it could have been so much better and a whole lot less cliché. It just needed some substance, with both the plot and the characters. But if you’re a blood/gore kinda person, the last 1/3 of the movie, at least, might satisfy to some degree.

Feed Me, Seymour!

(P.S. It's ironic that my rating for this movie is a plant monster, huh?)

Recent East Asian Cinema #7: Nobody Knows.

Welcome to the seventh (and final) of seven posts that will detail East Asian cinema, giving genre history leading up to a recent movie which will be reviewed! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

-----------

Genre: Drama.

History: Drama, next to comedy, goes so far back that it would be incredibly hard to detail the history of the genre in this space. So, instead, I will just give a brief history of the genre for Japanese culture. The 1950s really was the big time for the Japanese drama, because it was the debut decade for Akira Kurosawa, who made films like Rashomon, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, and Ran. Some of his films, such as Ran and Throne of Blood, were based on Shakespearian plays (King Lear and Macbeth, respectively). His films inspired many people, from Sergio Leone to George Lucas.

Three years after the 1985 release of Ran, a set of (completely unrelated) events would occur in Japan widely known as the “Affair of the Four Abandoned Children of Sugamo.” These events would later inspire a 2004 film entitled Nobody Knows, based on the same events, but toned down quite a bit. The movie was Japan’s entry for Best Foreign Film for the Academy Awards, and it won Best Actor Award at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival for fourteen-year-old Yûya Yagira, as well as two other awards (including Best Film) at two other film festivals. And it is the final film I will be discussing for this week of Recent East Asian Cinema.

Nobody Knows (2004).

Country of Origin: Japan.

Original Title: Dare mo shiranai.

Director: Hirokazu Koreeda.

Nobody Knows is about a single mother, Keiko (You), who leaves her four children—Akira (Yûya Yagira), 12 years old and the oldest of the group; Kyoko (Ayu Kitaura); Shigeru (Hiei Kimura); and Yuki (Momoko Shimizu)—alone in an apartment for over a year. She sneaks the younger three in via luggage, and the landlord only knows about Akira and Keiko. All of the children are also born from a different father each, and none of them are registered as ever being born, so none of them goes to school. Keiko has a job (and boyfriend) out of town, and she begins leaving for longer and longer periods of time before she eventually just stops coming home. So now the kids must fend for themselves as eventually they run out of money and therefore food, electricity, and water.

This movie is pretty hardcore, especially since it’s a true story. And what’s worse, I read up on the real story, and it really is a lot worse than it was portrayed in the movie (which is hard to believe). The movie is almost 2 and a half hours long, and feels it. You’re dragged along (especially in the first hour) with these poor children and how they slowly start running out of money and everything else. Akira has to start becoming friends with some store owners in order to get some free food, they have to get water and bathe at the water spout in the park, and just live by the sunlight.

It’s a really tough movie to watch, as you know everything is just going to get worse and worse until it ends in just a depressing manner. But in doing so, it’s a really powerful movie, showing everything these kids had to do to survive, as well as their changing moods and all the decisions they make. You know you were in for a rough time from the very beginning, when you see the mother and oldest son sneaking the other kids in via the luggage (like, they were hiding inside it).

The only negatives would be that the movie is really slow, and the ending (as well as the overall movie in general) is really depressing. And then it has an open ending with no real resolution (which is why I had to go research what really happened). I bet if I watched it again, I’d grow to appreciate the movie even more, and I already really appreciate what it did do in the first place. But I just remember staring at the timer on my DVD player wondering if the movie was ever going to end… though I didn’t want to turn it off, because I was engaged enough to want to know what happened to the kids. It was a bizarre feeling. I think this is one of those movies that everybody should see at least once, but it would be hard to give it a second viewing just because of the subject matter. So yeah… time to rate it.

I Am McLovin!

Recent East Asian Cinema #6: Shaolin Soccer.

Welcome to the sixth of seven posts that will detail East Asian cinema, giving genre history leading up to a recent movie which will be reviewed! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

--------------

Genre: Hong Kong Action Cinema/Comedy.

History: In yesterday’s history lesson, I discussed the early history of Hong Kong Action Cinema. By the time I got to the 1990s, I mentioned that these movies went into a slump, and two types of movies brought them out of it. The first was the rebirth of the wuxia film, AKA the type of film that Jet Li would make. The other type that helped get Hong Kong out of a slump took the other route, with the types of movies Jackie Chan would make.

Jackie Chan really brought into the mainstream the kung fu comedy with his slapstick humor and realistic stunts. However, the man to help bring Hong Kong out of its slump was not Jackie Chan, but a man named Stephen Chow. Stephen Chow is a comedian, but a lot of his jokes dealt with Chinese culture, meaning that the Western World wouldn’t have understood a lot of his material. Thus, his earlier films went mostly unrecognized internationally. However, he then created a movie by the name of Shaolin Soccer, which was not only an international hit, but became the best selling movie in China at the time. That title would only be succeeded by Stephen Chow’s next movie, Kung Fu Hustle. So now we’re going to focus on the kung fu comedy with Shaolin Soccer.

Shaolin Soccer (2001).

Country of Origin: China/Hong Kong.

Original Title: Siu lam juk kau.

Director: Stephen Chow.

The movie is about a former Shaolin monk, Sing (Stephen Chow), now basically living off the street, who wants to bring Shaolin Kung Fu to the masses, as he believes it will make all lives easier. But when former soccer star Fung (Ng Man Tat) is fired by his evil brother, Hung (Patrick Tse Yin), he stumbles upon down-and-out Sing on the street and realizes that he has a Mighty Steel Leg that could work wonders in soccer. So Sing tries to get together his former monk brothers, all with special abilities of their own, to put together a Shaolin soccer team. The only thing in their way is Hung’s Team Evil, who they must beat in order to win the competition.

This movie is crazy, wacky, and random. There’s even a random dance number (which I’ve included in my Top 10 Random Dance Scenes) that’s bizarre, but hilarious. The movie is funny and over-the-top, and there really isn’t much to say about it. It’s basically a parody on both wuxia and sports comedy.

The special effects are pretty good, especially within the final soccer match. The story is fun, the actors/actresses have good comedic timing, and the movie is all around plain good fun. That’s the only real way to describe it. There’s really not much else to say about it, really, so I’ll leave it at this rather short review.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Recent East Asian Cinema #5: Hero.

Welcome to the fifth of seven posts that will detail East Asian cinema, giving genre history leading up to a recent movie which will be reviewed! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

----------------

Genre: Hong Kong Action Cinema/Wuxia.

History: Hong Kong Action Cinema was a brand of movie that took the Hollywood view of the action movie and mixed it with Chinese tradition and mysticism. The first brand of this type of movie was called wuxia, starting back in the 1920s, which typically emphasized the mysticism and fantasy aspects. They used wires and trampoline acrobatics, along with camera techniques, to show quick moves and flying styles. Most of these early movies were based on literature of the same style. Some of the first big stars of the wuxia subgenre were Cheng Pei-Pei and Jimmy Wang-Yu, as well as Connie Chan Po-chu, a woman famed for playing male roles.

However, in the 1930s, the wuxia subgenre drifted out of cinema due to political reasons and were replaced with more realistic hand-to-hand kung fu combat. After World War II, due to severe cultural changes, wuxia began to come back into style with grittier violence. In the 1970s, Bruce Lee made famous Hong Kong Action Cinema, only to be succeeded by Jackie Chan and Jet Li in the 1980s.

Though while Chan and Li might have brought some new appeal with the martial arts films, the mid-1990s put Hong Kong films into a slump. Two types of movies helped bring them out of the slump. One type will be talked about now, and the other tomorrow. The first type is the rebirth of the wuxia film with the international hit Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in 2000. Soon after, even though he had seemingly left the martial arts epic for more American films, Jet Li returned to his roots with yet another wuxia film, Hero, in 2002. Hero helped, along with the aforementioned film, to bring wuxia back into popularity. It was a hit in China, so much so that Quentin Tarantino (who has often been inspired by the martial arts/wuxia films himself) took notice and decided to finance it enough to bring it to American audiences in 2004. And it is the very film we’re going to look at today.

Hero (2002).

Country of Origin: China/Hong Kong.

Original Title: Ying xiong.

Director: Yimou Zhang.

The first couple times I saw this movie, I thought it was really good, but didn’t fully comprehend what it was doing (as in, respect it). After my most recent viewing, however, I think I really get the film and like it that much more. Hero is about Nameless (Jet Li), a low-class man who defeated three of the most powerful assassins in the country—Sky (Donnie Yen), Broken Sword (Tony Leung Chiu Wai), and Flying Snow (Maggie Cheung)—who had been trying to murder the King of Qin (Daoming Chen). The movie chronicles (as imdb states) a series of Rashomon-like flashbacks to try and figure out how Nameless truly came about defeating these assassins. The movie also stars Zhang Ziyi as Moon, a servant to Broken Sword and Flying Snow.

First, I have to mention the obvious: this film was beautiful in numerous ways—its cinematography, its color-coding, its choreography. Every scene had a special color-coding (usually specific to the flashback sequence or location), and that was only helped by the amazing cinematography. The choreographed fights were amazing, as well. One big issue I’ve always had with fights scenes that are usually one-against-many is that the many always stand around and do nothing, giving the one person an easy time in the fight. There are two movies in recent memory that actually have everybody attacking at once: the first is the previously reviewed Oldboy (in the hallway fight) and this one. When Sky takes on all 7 guards toward the beginning, he’s really taking them all on at once, and it’s amazing to watch.

The story is simple, yet complex. There are 3 versions of the story told via flashbacks, and you don’t get the full truth until the very end. I think the plot twist would have been stronger had it not been revealed halfway into the movie (which I think had been my original issue with the movie), but it’s still a strong message and a cool plan that was set up.

There was one specific moment, though, that I’d like to bring attention to, because it was just weird/funny, and I’m not sure if it was meant to be. Halfway through the first flashback’s fight between Nameless and Sky, an old man who had been playing music starts to leave. They don’t even show the two stop fighting, but randomly, Jet Li is facing the man and asks him if he would please play some more music. Then the camera shows the blank faces of all three men one by one as the man gets out his instrument to continue playing. It was just a really bizarre scene, but it was followed by a cool fight sequence, so it didn’t really bother me.

There’s really not much else to say about the film. Jet Li’s voice over, I think, could have been better, to a degree, but besides that and anything previously mentioned, the film was fine (though it could have used some Zhang Ziyi nudity. There was a sex scene, after all). But the movie was beautiful to watch, the story was great, and a few things actually reminded me of 300 with Leonidas, so that was cool. So yeah, that’s about it for this one.

A Keanu 'Whoa'